The debate over “torture” is absurd. To begin with, the word itself conjures up an image very different from what is being discussed. “Torture” brings to mind the image of senseless and sadistic abuse and, while I have no particular objection to such abuses being inflicted upon the monsters we are fighting, I can see why some would object. What we are talking about – and what some want to ban – is the directed use of pain and coercion to extract necessary and, in some cases, literally life-saving information. “Torture” is probably a bad thing. “Coercive Interrogation” on the other hand is an unqualified good.

Only a supreme moral idiot or a pacifist (but I repeat myself) would seriously argue that we should refrain from the use of effective force and coercion in interrogation in the service of some vague and valueless moral principle. It is absurd to believe that it is acceptable for us to maim and kill our enemies but somehow wrong to subject them to waterboarding in order to gain information which will save lives.

Let’s post a few hypothetical situations by way of moral clarification.

1) A captured terrorist has vital information about the location of a nuclear device controlled by al-Qaeda which is set to go off within twenty-four hours. He is entirely uncooperative. If he is not tortured, hundreds of thousands will probably die. How do we make him talk?

2) US forces raid a bomb factory in Baghdad, only to find that the people they were hoping to find there have already left for their targets – a group of Iraqi civilians. If given enough information, US forces can probably save a hundred Iraqi lives - and possibly American ones as well. What should be done?

3) US interrogators capture a vital al-Qaeda member who is filled with information about the group’s global operations. No attack is known to be imminent – but, then again, we don’t know what he knows. He refuses to answer any questions. Should coercion be used to make him talk?

4) A serial killer is captured after having kidnapped a child. The child is trapped in a location where investigators have been unable to find her. The killer offers her location in exchange for avoiding the death penalty. She may be dead. She may not. There’s no way of knowing other than to take his offer – unless…

I put it to you that anyone who would oppose the use of coercive interrogation under such circumstances is, to put it simply, a damnable fool. Only a moral absolutist of the most absurd construction would disallow the use of strong and necessary interrogative techniques under such conditions.

To put it simply, anyone who believes that we should rob ourselves of necessary tools – that we should tie one hand behind our back – is either a moron of the highest rank or a moral coward of extraordinary cynicism – one willing to risk lives for the sake of an abstract and silly moral principle. We face an enemy of the most dangerous sort imaginable: both merciless and undeterable. They can strike anywhere – even where you or I live. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want people I know to die in a terrorist attack because our leaders were more concerned about the imaginary rights of alleged people than they were about the people they are sworn to protect.

The greatest problem here is the fact that, regrettably, a majority of the public have been conditioned by years of softness to view “torture” as being a great moral wrong. Those of common sense may well understand the uses of the practice but, alas, common sense is hardly common among the common folk these days. Listening to the half-informed rantings of people on this subject, I often recall Churchill’s remark that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with an average voter. Since, in great swathes of the West, the average voters are the forty year-old Soccer Mom who won’t let her kids play with toy guns and her whipped husband, it should common as little surprise that pandering politicians are eager to slavishly attempt to cater to the desire of Mrs. Organic-Food-Buyer that the war, if it have to be fought, be waged in a thoroughly PG-13 fashion.

A great majority of the people’s attitude towards this war is, to paraphrase a great man, that they don’t mind if we flush terrorists out – but they don’t like our methods. Someone ought to ask those people how they propose to stop terrorism by their methods. This is a war to be waged through unwavering unsentimentally about all things.

We know that this sort of stuff works – all the blather about how “torture doesn’t work” is simply a convenient excuse for people of a certain type to dodge the essential moral question – how far do we go in our defense? It certainly is true that the badly-conceived or pointless use of coercive techniques might not work. Is it true that other techniques, if well-executed, won’t work? I don’t believe it to be so. In fact, all historic evidence suggests otherwise.

The other traditional argument against the “mistreatment” of enemy prisoners is that it will encourage the enemy to do the same to those of us they capture. Well, I would respectfully point out that the enemy has yet to decline to murder a prisoner, making this a non-issue.

The problem with this whole debate is that it betrays a fundamental lack of seriousness about this war. When we hesitate before using all means – when we don’t drive the knife in the whole of the way – we show a lack of commitment which is evident to the enemy. The enemy won’t hesitate to behead those of us they take captive if they believe it will bring them an advantage, yet we argue about whether or not it is permissible even to “humiliate” an enemy, let alone to threaten them or injure them out of necessity. What does that say to the enemy?

The enemy does not see our mercy or kindness as a sign of our inner goodness – as the proponents of a policy of softness seem to hope. Instead, the enemy sees our weakness for what it is. In our weakness it sees an irresolution that can be exploited. In our weakness it finds the hope to continue. For, if we are weak – if we aren’t willing to do whatever it takes to win – then it must follow in the mind of the enemy, especially in light of our previous retreats, that it is simply a matter of finding the right level of violence and that then they will have victory.